Thursday, Apr 30, 2009  --  Comment on NIH embryonic stem cell guidelines

The National Institutes of Health recently issued proposed guidelines for funding embryonic stem cell research, in response to President Obama's executive order to allow such funding.  This action raised many concerns.   The comment period runs until 11:00pm EST on May 26, 2009.  

First, I would hope that funding decisions are based not just on these guidelines, but also on the practicality of the project being funded. With the tremendous progress being made using adult stem cells, cord blood stem cells, and the rapid advances being achieved with the ethical alternative to embryonic stem cells called Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells (iPS cells), these projects should be given priority consideration for funding. If not, then the funding is based on politics and not science.

Second, the guidelines themselves create two huge loopholes that require revision to limit funding to projects that will rely on truly excess embryos.

The new guidelines are too broad in that they allow destruction of newly created embryos who were never frozen, thus increasing the prospects for a rushed and biased consent process.

Also, despite the claims that the guidelines will only involve human embryos who would otherwise be destroyed, federal tax dollars will be a stimulus that encourages destruction of living embryonic human beings for stem cell research, especially if any preference is given to this research over the non-embryonic stem cell research referenced above.

Recall that a number of experts have already declared that the progress with iPS cells has effectively rendered the use of embryonic stem cells "obsolete." Fund projects that will truly advance science rather than politics.

Wednesday, Apr 29, 2009  --  Keeping score for Notre Dame

Notre Dame president Fr. John Jenkins keeps telling the public how proud he is about inviting President Obama to give the commencement address and receive an honorary degree at Notre Dame on May 17th.  If you keep score, as would be done with the football coach, this is what he is up against at this point in the game:

Archbishop Chaput Criticizes "Creative Reasoning" Behind ND Defense of Obama Invitation; 53 Opposing Bishops

First 300,000 Petition Signatures Delivered to Notre Dame Board Members, Fr. Jenkins  (total has now reached over 340,000)

Mary Ann Glendon Refuses Notre Dame Laetare Medal over Obama Invitation

Notre Dame Loses $8.2 Million in Withheld Donations (and counting) over Obama Scandal

Those last two items could really hurt.  If it was the football coach, could he keep his job? 

Tuesday, Apr 28, 2009  --  Parental rights are already being lost

What else does the government want to do for you?  Do you think they can do a better job of raising your children?  Some judges and government leaders seem to think so.  Watch out for the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC).  Among other things, this treaty would dictate the following requirements in violation of parental rights:

* Children would have the ability to choose their own religion while parents would only have the authority to give their children advice about religion.
* The best interest of the child principle would give the government the ability to override every decision made by every parent if a government worker disagreed with the parent's decision.
* A child's "right to be heard" would allow him (or her) to seek governmental review of every parental decision with which the child disagreed.
* Children would acquire a legally enforceable right to leisure.
* Teaching children about Christianity in schools has been held out of compliance with the CRC.
* Allowing parents to keep their children out of sex education has been held out of compliance with the CRC.
* Children would have the right to reproductive health information and services, including abortions, without parental knowledge or consent.

Concerns about serious infringement on parental rights from recent U.S. court decisions (e.g. Plan B ruling) and this international treaty have led Michael Farris to establish ParentalRights.org.  A primary objectives of this organization are to obtain passage of the Parental Rights Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and to defeat any attempts for U.S. ratification of the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child.

More details can be obtained about the dangers of the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child and the effort to pass the Parental Rights Amendment at ParentalRights.org. 

Monday, Apr 27, 2009  --  Someone else noticed the double talk

"It's hard to disagree with him because he'll always tell you he agrees with you." observed Cardinal Francis George at the 2009 Louisiana Priests Convention on April 21st. 

"Maybe that's political.  I think he sincerely wants to agree with you.  You have to say, again and again, 'No, Mr. President, we don't agree (on abortion)," Cardinal George observed about his March 18th meeting with President Obama at the White House. 

Cardinal George mentioned that he told the President he was concerned about his decision to rescind the Mexico City policy, which resulted in providing taxpayer money to fund abortion overseas. "He said we weren't exporting abortion," the cardinal said. "I said, 'Yes we are.'"

Speaking further about abortion, Cardiinal George noted, "It's a society-dividing issue, and on this issue, we're with Abraham Lincoln and he's with Stephen Douglas, and he doesn't like to hear that, but that's where he is."   "I think on the life issue he's on the wrong side of history," the cardinal said.

Friday, Apr 24, 2009  --  Is abortion a non-issue at Notre Dame?

The "other" school that partners with Notre Dame is St. Mary's College.  An event dubbed "Sex & Candy" was held April 20th at St. Mary's.  This event invited young women at the college to discuss premarital sex.   That event got coverage in the Notre Dame Observer, even though a Pro-Life ad cannot be placed there.

The St. Mary's event was hosted by Health Center staffer Cindy Horton-Cavanaugh and Women's Health director Cathe DeCleene. "Being sexually active is a learning and growing process," Horton-Cavanaugh told the Observer. "A good age to have sex is when you are emotionally ready."  Gee, I thought a good time was when you got married.

Sounds like St. Mary's students, and presumably their many partners from Notre Dame "need" abortion in case they decide they don't want to be pregnant after a "learning and growing process" has occurred.  Isn't it time that both of these schools were denied any claim to be Catholic?

Thursday, Apr 23, 2009  --  This "dialogue" goes down a one-way street

Notre Dame President Father John Jenkins has insisted that his honor for President Obama is all about "‘dialogue."  Jenkins said that the school wants to recognize Obama's "very real and significant accomplishments and his leadership," while at the same time wanting to initiate "a positive engagement on the issues we care about."

Here are three examples that display how this "dialogue" will proceed, after already ignoring that a commencement ceremony offers no opportunity for debate or discussion:

1)  Obama Administration Warns Local Police Pro-Life Advocates Are Rightwing Extremists

2)  Homeland Security Head Defends Abortion Reference in 'Extremism' Report

3)  Notre Dame President Rejects Students' Requests for Dialogue over Obama Scandal

4)  11th hour: Notre Dame newspaper backs out of ad

President Obama has already declared those who disagree with his position on abortion as "rightwing extremists" which suggests strong potential for dialogue.  President Jenkins has refused any dialogue with students who disagree with the invitation of Obama, and the student newspaper is not willing to run an ad that deals with the subject of abortion, even after it had been fully approved earlier -- I wonder who intervened on that one.

It seems the explanation of establishing dialogue is losing any remaining semblance of credibility very fast.  Obama has made his position quite clear, while the Pro-Life position cannot be discussed or presented -- doesn't silence mean consent?   The only dialogue that appears possible here certainly goes down a one-way street -- and the wrong way, no less!

Wednesday, Apr 22, 2009  --  FDA fails 17-year olds and their parents on Plan B

After the outlandish Federal Court ruling demanding that the FDA allow the morning-after pill (Plan B) to be sold over-the-counter to 17-year-olds, would you expect the FDA to appeal? That certainly will not happen under the Obama administration.   Rather, the FDA simply accepted the court decision and ordered it to be implemented.

Surprizingly, both parents and teenage girls were seen on local news reports criticizing this action, noting that it will just encourage teens to have more irresponsible sex.  It is not surprising they think that way, but surprising their concerns were covered.  Of course, Planned Parenthood could not be happier.

Concerned Women for America's President Wendy Wright noted, "Pregnancy counselors report that women are relying on Plan B as a regular form of birth control because it is easy to get.  They are not aware that it is less effective than other methods of birth control and that it has not been tested to determine the effects of using it multiple times.  Women, parents, and children who rely on the FDA to do their job deserve better than this shoddy decision."

Tuesday, Apr 21, 2009  --  Obama admin's rules for killing embryos to obtain stem cells

Everyone knew these rules were coming after President Obama issued his executive order to allow Federal funding of research that involves killing of embryos to obtain their stem cells.  Now the rules are out, and they are not viewed favorably.

Concerns about how broadly the new guidelines can be used include: allowing destruction of newly created embryos who were never frozen, and effectively encouraging destruction of living embryonic human beings for stem cell research with the lure of Federal tax dollars.

Monday, Apr 20, 2009  --  Planned Parenthood consistently facilitates statutory rape

Another video reveals yet another Planned Parenthood facilitating statutory rape.  In this video from Tennessee, the "helpful counselor" explains to the 14-year-old girl how to get a judicial bypass to avoid parental consent and make sure the judge does not learn the 31-year-old boyfriend's age.  As before, this girl is actually star undercover investigator Lila Rose.

The pattern is always the same.  Once confronted with the violation, Planned Parenthood admits it is a serious issue and claims they will retrain their staff.   How gullible does one need to be to accept these consistent results as isolated incidents created by poorly trained employees?  Doesn't it seem much more likely that Planned Parenthood policy calls for doing everything possible to sell the abortion?

Why would that not be their policy?  They proudly proclaim that all sexual activity is just fine as long as both parties consent.  The girl must have "consented" because she calls the man her boyfriend, and she "needs" an abortion.  How could a "trusted health care provider" do anything less than comply with her request? 

The evidence suggests that Planned Parenthood is quite willing to blatantly violate any law that prevents them from committing an abortion they consider necessary.  When was there ever an abortion they did not consider necessary?

Friday, Apr 17, 2009  --  Trying for another trip to the U.S. Supreme Court

Yesterday, Thomas More Society filed a petition asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review and reverse a decision prohibiting the issuance and sale of "Choose Life" specialty license plates in Illinois.  Lead attorney Thomas Brejcha feels there is a strong opportunity the court will take this case, given the inconsistency of the Seventh Circuit Court ruling against Choose Life plates compared to similar cases heard in other circuit courts that allowed Choose Life plates in a number of states.

If this case is accepted by the Supreme Court, it would be the fourth time Brejcha has taken a case there.  The first three trips were with NOW vs Scheidler, leading to the vindication of Joe Scheidler's efforts to save babies at abortion clinics.   Scheidler's conviction under RICO, a anti-racketeering law, was reversed twice by the Supreme Court, because the Seventh Circuit did not accept the ruling the first time.   Are we seeing a pattern here?

Thursday, Apr 16, 2009  --  When NO is not accepted as NO

In the state of Illinois, if you choose to be an organ donor, you now register your intent in the Illinois Organ/Tissue Donor Registry.  That intent becomes absolute, so it cannot be overruled by family members or other caregivers.  If you do not want to register as an organ donor, that information is not recorded.  Any option to limit your donation to specific organs or tissues has been eliminated.

Under provisions of an amendment to the Illinois Anatomical Gift Act that became effective on 1/1/2007, "When there is a suitable candidate for organ donation and a donation or consent to donate has not yet been given, procedures to preserve the decedent's body for possible organ and tissue donation may be implemented under the authorization of the applicable organ procurement agency, at its own expense, prior to making a donation request."

Under these legal provisions, if you do not intend to be an organ donor, how do you prevent an organ procurement agency from performing invasive procedures to preserve your organs for transplant?  With the donor registry in place, no information about organ donation is recorded on your driver's license.  Will anyone notice if you include a statement in your wallet that you are not an organ donor?   Would such a statement have any legal force?

I will be seeking legal advice to obtain answers to these questions.   For now, I suggest that anyone deciding against becoming an organ donor should place a statement to that effect on a separate card or on a label taped to the back of your driver's license.  Your intent not to donate organs should also be stated in your Durable Power of Attorney for Health Care document.

If your rejection of organ donation is not obvious, an organ procurement agency will be seeking approval from your agent, surrogate, guardian, spouse, or other relative to harvest your organs.  Even before seeking that approval, they have been given legal authority to perform pre-harvesting invasive procedures that are done to a living person without informed consent for purposes of assessing and preserving organs for transplant. 

Given the questionable status of relying on "brain death" and the even more tenuous "donation after cardiac death" option, the push for harvesting organs is overridding the opportunity to allow the time needed to ascertain that death has really occurred.  Becoming an organ donor could lead to your premature death, but current law makes saying NO much more difficult than saying yes.

Wednesday, Apr 15, 2009  --  Are you suspected of being a "rightwing extremist"?

You probably thought the Department of Homeland Security was focused on protecting U.S. citizens from foreign terrorists.  We have just learned that the department has a new focus.  A recently released report (pdf) has been sent to law enforcement organizations throughout the nation. 

That report has the imposing title, "Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment." So who might these rightwing extremists turn out to be and where might we encounter them?   The report provides the following definition: 

Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.

Wow, it sounds like if you are Pro-Life, you might be a suspected rightwing extremist! But take heart!  Since we have many more issues than abortion (e.g. embryonic stem cell research, assisted suicide, euthanasia, in vitro fertilization, human cloning, etc.), should we not be excluded from the suspect list because we are not dedicated to a single issue? 

Will our nation ever be safe again with all these rightwing extremists running around?  I think it would be a lot safer if some of them actually won elections and replaced the people who appoint the people who write outrageous reports like this. 

Apparently, if you demand your First Amendment rights to express views in favor of the right to life, this administration considers you a rightwing extremist, as likely to commit terrorists acts as Islamic terrorists, who cannot even be called that anymore, if you want to be politically correct.  Thomas More Law Center has filed a Federal lawsuit that cites this report as a violation of the First and Fifth Amendments.

Tuesday, Apr 14, 2009  --  Planned Parenthood's version of "don't ask, don't tell"

Were you aware that women who express regret about their abortions don't trust other women to think for themselves?  A Planned Parenthood staff member wrote an article critical of a woman holding an "I regret my abortion" sign, complaining "It assumes that women have little to no capacity to think for themselves about their lives and their choices and their bodies."

In fact, the women who hold "I regret my abortion" signs know from experience that they were misled about abortion.  They are sharing this reality with others against the politically correct tide of affirmation that abortion is just a "simple medical procedure" to remove the "products of conception."  And they are making a huge difference with the general public, who now seems to understand that abortion is a negative experience with many risks and difficulties.

But this critic of "I regret my abortion" signs claims it is "insulting" women "to let women know how YOU experienced YOUR abortion."  She says, "The solution is to ensure that women can make informed choices based on the best medical evidence."

How could anyone expect such abortion proponents to offer "the best medical evidence" to make an informed choice about abortion?  Even today, abortion advocates insist that abortion produces no negative psychological consequences, in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.  They even deny any negative impacts on future pregnancies, when studies clearly show increased risk of preterm births and other difficulties, including sterility.

This critic also made a weak analogy about criticising fast food as insulting to those who choose to eat it to support her position that "I regret my abortion" signs actually insult women.  Hasn't she noticed the campaign against fast food, including threats to tax it, ban it from schools, and bring lawsuits against the companies who sell it?  Did anyone seem concerned about insulting people who eat fast food?  She must have been hiding in her abortion clinic, trying to deny reality!

If this is the start of a Planned Parenthood campaign to establish a "don't ask, don't tell' policy about the negative experiences of women after abortion, it will not work.  The truth is out, with more and more women bravely stepping forward to say "I regret my abortion."

Monday, Apr 13, 2009  --  How is Planned Parenthood doing at reducing abortion?

Last week Planned Parenthood revealed their latest annual report (for 2007-2008).  Since they constantly claim they are tryng to reduce abortion, how did they do?  They report killing 305,310 preborn human beings in 2007 alone, up nearly 5.4 percent from the 2006 total of 289,650.

They must have spread the word internally to blame it on the economy, so news stories appeared in late March that Planned Parenthood was almost surprised to see increased abortions.  They cited many more women getting abortions because they could not afford to have another baby in a bad economy. 

Planned Parenthood can always find something to blame for committing 5-10% more abortions every year compared to the year before.  They received to $349.6 million in government funding for "reproductive health" out of a $1.038 billion budget, so it wasn't a lack of money. 

It seems that more money, more birth control for teens, more graphic "comprehensive" sex education, morning after pills over-the-counter, and more mega-abortion fortresses have all failed to reduce abortion.  Why should anyone believe that Planned Parenthood ever wanted to reduce abortion? 

Thursday, Apr 9, 2009  --  Abortion is not a sound medical option

Thanks to Colleen Malloy, M.D., Northwestern University, Feinberg School of Medicine, for responding so forcefully to an outrageous Chicago Sun-Times 3/30/09 editorial entitled “Women have right to be told of abortion option.”  That editorial contended “When a woman’s water breaks early in a pregnancy, and there is almost no hope the baby will survive, at a Catholic hospital she is not told abortion is a recommended option.”

My question was "recommended option" according to whom?   How could an invasive procedure like abortion ever be considered a better option than  allowing a miscarriage to proceed naturally?  Dr. Malloy confirms my initial reaction, but with the credentials of a medical professional. 

Clearly, the Sun-Times editorial staff is clueless on the medical issues involved.  Their position is based on a pro-abortion agenda, not on sound medicine.   Catholic hospitals are providing the best medical care, not withholding a "recommended option."  The Sun-Times editorial board thinks doctors should be denied their conscience rights by forcing them to offer the "option" of abortion.  Who cares whether that option is not really a sound medical treatment?

Wednesday, Apr 8, 2009  --  Truth Day in downtown Chicago

Today I participated in two of the three locations of this year's first Truth Day sponsored by Pro-Life Action League.  The first location near the Metra train stations had large numbers of people go by heading to work who got a chance to see the truth about abortion. 

The final location at Daley Plaza happened on a day when the plaza was hosting a special event recognizing the return of baseball, so there was more than the usual lunch traffic.   I responded to a few people that "we think there should be more future baseball players." 

Tuesday, Apr 7, 2009  --  In defense of Pope Benedict XVI

During his recent African trip, Pope Benedict XVI said that the distribution of condoms would not resolve the AIDS problem. The Pope has made it clear that abstinence is going to be the best way to fight AIDS.  His position has generated criticism from many sources, including some European bishops who really should know better.

However, a number of people have also come to his defense, most recently non-Catholic Dr. Laura Schlessinger.  In conclusion she noted, "The truth is that he is simply correct and too many people don’t want to hear it, because they want to live lives unfettered by rules.  It is sad that they don’t realize that this makes them a slave to animal impulse versus a master of human potential."

Earlier, Edward C. Green, director of the AIDS Prevention Research Project at the Harvard Center for Population and Development Studies, said that the evidence confirms that the Pope is correct in his assessment that condom distribution exacerbates the problem of AIDS.

Martin Ssempa, a prominent Ugandan AIDS activist, said that those who are attacking the Pope for his stand against the use of condoms in the fight against AIDS have "no credibility," and the bishops of India proclaimed their support as well.

Monday, Apr 6, 2009  --  40 Days for Life concludes with 433 babies saved

The 40 Days for Life spring campaign ended on April 5th.  At that point 433 babies were saved from abortion, based on confirmed information from 135 locations in the United States, Canada, Australia and Northern Ireland.  Experience indicates many more babies were saved without any confirmation being offered to 40 Days participants.

The effort relies on 40 days of prayer and fasting for an end to abortion, constant vigils outside abortion centers, and community outreach. This was the fourth coordinated, simultaneous 40 Days for Life campaign in the last 20 months.  Combined, these campaigns resulted in 466 local efforts in 240 separate cities in all 50 states plus seven other nations. 

More than 200,000 people have participated and more than 4,000 churches have been involved. At least 1,542 babies have been known to be spared from abortion across these four campaigns.  In total, 17 employees of abortion centers quit their jobs.  Three abortion centers closed after earlier 40 Days for Life.  Pray that more abortion centers will close after this most recent campaign.

Friday, Apr 3, 2009  --  Over 235,000 say Obama invitation is an "embarrassment"

I submitted this letter to the Chicago Tribune in response to their criticism of Cardinal George for acknowledging the embarrassment to faithful Catholics caused by the invitation of President Barack Obama to give the commencement speech at Notre Dame University on May 17th.

Thursday, Apr 2, 2009  --  Keeping score shows the bad news for life already

Fr. Alphonse de Valk is the editor of Catholic Insight Magazine.  In the April edition of Catholic Insight magazine Fr. DeValk presents a compendium of information that together paints a picture of a president and his administration that should be of grave concern to all. 

To make matters even more threatening, the U.S. Senate leadership is now hinting at the use of the budget process called "reconciliation" to push some bills through without encountering a filibuster -- the right of the minority to prolong debate on a bill to which they object.  This concept has been mentioned in the context of a national health care proposal that would likely include abortion coverage.

The need for conversion of President Obama to recognize, and then stop, the genocide he is inflicting on African-Americans is urgent.  It is not too late to write the President by participating in the Red Envelope Project.  In conjunction with this project, pray for President Barack Obama.

Wednesday, Apr 1, 2009  --  Witnessing the life-saving impact of 40 Days for Life

The latest count of babies saved from abortion during 40 Days for Life has reached 310 as of day 36 out of 40!   Of course, experience indicates that many more babies have been saved by these prayer vigils at 135 abortion mills around the nation and beyond.  The presence of prayerful witnesses gives some mothers a sign to just keep going and not even stop.

Of course, numbers do not tell the whole story.  Elizabeth in Sacramento encountered a mother who was being told abortion is her best option because her baby may have medical problems.  "I explained that her baby is precious," said Elizabeth, but at first, the mother was not interested in listening.  "My doctor insisted that there are multiple deformities," she said, "including spina bifida, and that this would be a 'special needs' baby."

"I shared how God knew from the beginning of time that He would create this special baby and that He gave special babies to special mothers," Elizabeth told her. "This baby is truly a gift from God."  At that point the two held hands and prayed together. "I pleaded with God to send her all the graces necessary to choose life, accept God's will and to ultimately trust that He has the best plan for her and her baby."

As Elizabeth finished her prayer, she asked the woman if she could kiss her baby.  The thought must have come from God, because she had no idea why she would ask such a question.  But the mother agreed, and Elizabeth bent down and kissed her stomach.  Immediately the mother proclaimed with joy, "I am keeping my baby!   I don't care what the doctor or what anyone else says," she said, "this is my baby!"  Elizabeth then watched as the young mother courageously walked away from the clinic.

That is what abortion supporters call "intimidation" and "misleading women into not having abortions."  Does that sound like a violent encounter to you? 

Just a few of the other reported impacts of 40 Days for Life include: an employee who is now seriously looking for a new job, a patient who is looking for a new doctor after learning her current doctor does abortions,  temporary closures at some locations without even cancelling appointments, giving those praying the opportunity to refer surprised customers to nearby pregnancy care centers.

If you have not had the opportunity to participate in the life-affirming experience of 40 Days for Life, another 40 Days for Life is scheduled for September 23rd through November 1st.  Get involved in 40 Days for Life near you, or become the leader to organize one in your area.